zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Shelbysaurus
Ceiling Master (talk) 03:33, January 24, 2018 (UTC) Edits on items Please, take a look of what I have corrected after your edits of yesterday. This is not suitable, you write that "Edited opening sentences for continuity..." but you unfortunately started and took in consideration a page where the text was not suitable and not corrected. Since you seem not to have viewed my corrections, please I suggest to stop your current edits, I will have to correct or revert most of them. WiseAdventurer (talk) 20:13, January 24, 2018 (UTC) :I am not 100% sure how the talk pages work, so I hope this is right... I just joined yesterday, and I have never been part of any wiki. I really love playing Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, and I wanted to help grow the articles on the wiki because I noticed that they were all stubs. I hate searching around the internet for questions I have in the game, so I thought it would be fun to add information here as I play so it's all in one spot. I really love the simplified ruleset in this wiki; it's very encouraging! That is the main reason I decided to join. I read the style guidelines, and they don't say anything about the rule you're talking about where only unique items can be referred to in the singular tense. Maybe you could hail an admin and ask them to add it to the Manual of Style so that other newbies like me don't get confused. It was really discouraging to see my edits get reverted over something that I didn't know about and couldn't look up. I'm still new, so I didn't know how to see your corrections until very recently. Please be patient with newbies! Shelbysaurus (talk) 04:05, January 25, 2018 (UTC) ::Thank you for answering and waiting for my message. Right now, I do not have enough time, I will develop my message later, I will help you to see how going with items pages. I guessed you are new, there is no problem, my message was neutral but I was a bit stressed by the numerous edits you were doing. The real problem is of course not you but previous edits made by a contributor that have not be corrected afterwards, for example the global presentation of the body article with the plural point, the cooking part or the "guly" writing such as "the food dish, Dubious Food" (what I have in mind right now). Tomorrow I will finish to correct and check all the change made yesterday and today, and show you the good way to present these items articles. WiseAdventurer (talk) 18:43, January 25, 2018 (UTC) :To be honest, you original message did not feel neutral. I know that I'm new and have a lot to learn, but based on what I read in the community guidelines, reversions are pretty drastic and not supposed to be used on good faith edits, so it was really disheartening to see my edits reverted and to see you on my talk page saying that you were going to revert the rest. I do not understand the rule that you are talking about because I do not see it in the style manual. I think that it should be added to the style manual if you are going to expect new people (and really anyone who doesn't have the style of the wiki memorized) to follow it. I understand that you may not be available to reply at the same time that I am, so please do not feel rushed if I reply quickly. I feel that you and I are getting off on the wrong foot, and our interactions are not a reflection of my expectations based on the community guidelines. I look forward to your reply and to clearing this up so that we can work amicably together on the wiki. Shelbysaurus (talk) 22:07, January 25, 2018 (UTC) ::You just misinterpret or over-interpret things, there is nothing wrong with your contribution, just some of them not suitable but because you unfortunately use a page as a model that has not been corrected or formatted yet (missed or forgotten), obviously it is not your fault, and about reversions, they are just a tool that help us to correct more easily, in particular in this case the similar correction for several pages, but you can notice that the first correction was just undone and explained in the edit summary (and here). My message was neutral since informative, even fair toward you by explaining the corrections I made, and it is our job to keep an eye on the activity. On a wiki, there are many contributors, you should accept that someone will edit, change sentence or text, correct, etc. after you but it does not mean you made things wrong, a wiki is always evolving. WiseAdventurer (talk) 21:41, January 26, 2018 (UTC) :I understand that the wiki is a growing and ever-changing thing. But I don't think that reversions are the same as future edits. It feels like it's actually you who doesn't accept that people will edit it, because you reverted or will revert all of my edits. I don't think it's fair to hold people accountable for style choices that aren't in the manual of style for the wiki. It makes me feel like it's a style choice that you made up, not one that is supported by the community, and like I'm being reverted because I can't read your mind. I was really excited to join the wiki, and editing pages is an extension of my excitement to play the game. But I haven't made any new edits because I'm nervous that you'll just revert them too. From my point of view, there was absolutely no way to anticipate the reversions because the rule you are talking about is not a rule in the wiki's manual of style, and the reversions were hurtful because in the community guidelines, it is clearly stated that reversions should not be used on good faith edits. I also don't understand your role, as you are not listed as an admin, but you describe yourself as responsible for keeping an eye on the wiki. I just feel that there is a huge discrepancy between the community guidelines, which state that we should not revert good faith edits and encourage users to break the rules if they prevent us from improving the wiki (although I do not recognize your reasoning for the reversions as an official rule because it's not in the manual of style), and your actions. Shelbysaurus (talk) 16:27, January 27, 2018 (UTC) ::OK, since you seem not to carefully read or take in consideration what I wrote, and apparently prefer to misreport or distort the facts, and I do not want to repeat things, it seems that the discussion will lead nowhere, there is more important to think or to do. WiseAdventurer (talk) 18:40, January 27, 2018 (UTC) :I have read and considered what you wrote, and I tried to express how your actions make me feel. I'm going to continue making edits that align with the wiki's manual of style and community guidelines. I hope that you do not revert them because of your own personal style choices or that you talk with an admin and have them update the manual of style if it needs to be updated. If it is updated, I will follow the updates. Shelbysaurus (talk) 19:12, January 27, 2018 (UTC)